Mike, I find several of your statements to clearly stretch the truth to fit your own bias.

First, “The Times, rather than admit Trump had been vindicated.” The reports clearly stated that Trump and his associates were “incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance.” This is NOT wiretapping or spying on presidential candidates, nor is it a conspiracy against him by the former administration. It is the legal surveillance of foreign spies, in which Trump and his associates entered into the surveillance. They were not targeted or sought out. That is a MAJOR difference. The truth of the facts is that Trump was NOT vindicated. Stick to the facts, not the facts you want.

Second, you asked, “Since when did journalists attempt to unmask sources?” The truthful answer is — since ALWAYS. Journalists, since the very first newspaper, have been attempting to learn the what, why, and yes, the who, behind EVERY story. While they do rely on anonymous informants themselves, it is their job to unmask the masked everywhere else. It always has been. Once again, stick to the facts.

Third, you stated, “has had this story…for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.” While it may (and probably is) true that Ms. Haberman sat on the story, her reasons for doing so as you stated them seem to be purely your own assumptions and spin doctoring. There are many plausible reasons a person would sit on such a story other than your conclusion. Especially since nothing illegal was done, either in the surveillance, the dissemination of the information, or the unmasking. All the immoral and illegal acts, even treasonous acts, were performed by Trump and his associates, to include Nunes. To be clear, this is fact, not my opinion. So, once more, stick to the facts, unless the facts support your conclusions, which is not the case here.